Update Documentation for OnboardingView screen

[akanshyabhat]

Update Documentation for OnboardingView screen

:recycle: Current situation & Problem

I noticed that the documentation for the initializers and overall descriptions of this screen were a bit unclear vague when I was trying to use them.

:books: Documentation

• Added additional details for each initializer and what differentiates each one
• Added more of a specific description to the overall view

:pencil: Code of Conduct & Contributing Guidelines

By submitting creating this pull request, you agree to follow our Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines:

• [x] I agree to follow the Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines.

[Supereg]

@PSchmiedmayer the set of required checks is a bit weird here. The checks getting run are slightly different to the ones that the branch protection rule enforces.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 76.75%. Comparing base (4971a82) to head (a82db3d).

:exclamation: Current head a82db3d differs from pull request most recent head bb1d154. Consider uploading reports for the commit bb1d154 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/StanfordSpezi/SpeziOnboarding/pull/40?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #40 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 76.75% 76.75% ======================================= Files 22 22 Lines 1148 1148 ======================================= Hits 881 881 Misses 267 267 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/StanfordSpezi/SpeziOnboarding/pull/40?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [Sources/SpeziOnboarding/OnboardingView.swift](https://app.codecov.io/gh/StanfordSpezi/SpeziOnboarding/pull/40?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi#diff-U291cmNlcy9TcGV6aU9uYm9hcmRpbmcvT25ib2FyZGluZ1ZpZXcuc3dpZnQ=) | `58.58% <ø> (ø)` | | ------ [Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry](https://app.codecov.io/gh/StanfordSpezi/SpeziOnboarding/pull/40?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi). > **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi) > `Δ = absolute (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data` > Powered by [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/StanfordSpezi/SpeziOnboarding/pull/40?src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi). Last update [4971a82...bb1d154](https://app.codecov.io/gh/StanfordSpezi/SpeziOnboarding/pull/40?src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=StanfordSpezi).

[PSchmiedmayer]

@Supereg We already adjusted them for #39 and once this is merged we could merge this PR.

[akanshyabhat]

Thanks @akanshyabhat for the PR! Just had some minor comments!

Thank you so much for your feedback @philippzagar! I just implemented it all and would appreciate it if you could take another look.

[akanshyabhat]

Thanks for incorporating the change requests, feel free to merge the PR @akanshyabhat 🚀

Thank you so much @philippzagar ! On my end, it says that merging is blocked and that there are two workflows awaiting approval. I'm also not quite sure how to show that I made the changes that Paul had requested.

[philippzagar]

@akanshyabhat Just approved the workflows, they should complete within a couple of minutes

[akanshyabhat]

@philippzagar I'm still getting a message saying that I can't merge until the requested changes (left by Paul) have been addressed. I'm not quite sure how I can address that beyond resolving the conversations which I've already done.

[philippzagar]

@philippzagar I'm still getting a message saying that I can't merge until the requested changes (left by Paul) have been addressed. I'm not quite sure how I can address that beyond resolving the conversations which I've already done.

The issue is resolved now, I dismissed Paul's review

[akanshyabhat]

Thank you so much!

[philippzagar]

@akanshyabhat Your commits on the feature branch are unsigned, please ensure that you properly set up your local commit signing: https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/managing-commit-signature-verification/about-commit-signature-verification

[akanshyabhat]

@akanshyabhat Your commits on the feature branch are unsigned, please ensure that you properly set up your local commit signing: https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/managing-commit-signature-verification/about-commit-signature-verification

@philippzagar I talked with Andreas today and he told me that we don’t need to have commits signed. I can make the necessary change but I’m not sure how to revise an old commit with a signature. Do you have any guidance regarding that?